There is a new theology on the block. Readers of theology can find an increasing number of books advocating it. Readers of popular Christian literature can unknowingly be influenced by this theology in the writings of people like Philip Yancey and John Eldredge. The average Christian probably doesn’t have the first idea what I’m referring to, and why this is an issue dividing some denominations.
What is Open Theism?
It also goes by the names “Openness Theology”, “Presentism” and “Freewill Theism”. Its goal is to uphold the freedom of our will in a vital, dynamic relationship with God. It believes that it is logically impossible for God to know the future in a world populated by volitional creatures. Therefore, the future is open to God just as much as to us. As a result, God is the ultimate risk-taker.
How Did This Arise?
This new theology arose from Arminianism. Arminianism teaches that God has perfect foreknowledge of the future. God knows what we will do in the future. This is primarily a passive knowledge. He observes (and influences) choices, but does not exert control. This is different from Calvinism which believes that God knows the future because He controls the future.
A group of Arminian scholars began to see a philosophical discrepancy between freewill and foreknowledge. In other words, they saw a fatal flaw in their theology. They have undermined Calvinism’s theological competitor. This would be part of the blessing.
Here’s the argument as simply as I can put it. First, genuine human freedom is not possible if God knows all of our future choices. If God knows them, they must take place. This would undermine “genuine human freedom”. They establish a choice between genuine human freedom and foreknowledge. They both can’t be true (in the theologians’ opinion). These men have sided with genuine human freedom.
Second, because they have placed genuine human freedom above foreknowledge, there is no logical reason for God’s foreknowledge. God can’t know what has not, and may not, happen. God cannot know the future because it is comprised of choices not made yet.
Third, they realized that the Arminian view of foreknowledge was essentially incompatible with any view of providence. God knows what will happen, but He exerts little or no control over what will happen. God is therefore more an observer of history than a participant.
The Blessing of Open Theism
This theology is an internal revolt against Arminianism. It exposes the logical inconsistencies within Arminian theology. A critique from within is generally harder to answer than one from without. This does not mean the critique is right. But in this case, the flaws of the system are exposed. These theologians are expressing their discontentment with Arminianism. They only indirectly assault Calvinism. This is because Calvinism starts from a very different set of priorities than either of these two systems.
Open Theism has a noble intent (I think). They want people to know God is engaged with history and wants an authentic relationship with us. We all need to remember that God loves His people and is actively pursuing our good. But, as you will see, I think they gave up too much (unnecessarily) to gain something already espoused by Calvinism. They refuse to embrace Calvinism because they want to maintain this “genuine human freedom”. They embrace a myth (since the Fall at the very least) while they inflate humanity and shrink God.
(this is the first in a series on Open Theism)
Cavman Considers 
As someone who leans toward Arminianism, I’ve gotta say I like this “open thesism” bit. Sounds like it could work well with process theology, too.
It does. And from where I sit… that’s a big problem.